A Proposal for Open Peer Review

Shaffer, Kris

doi:10.30535/mto.20.1.14

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many books (Doll, 2017; Radley, 2008; Salzman & Sahl, 1977; Scott, 2000), articles (Moore, 1992; Richards, 2017; Winkler, 1978) and online resources about harmony in popular music (Anderson et al, 2011; Manzo, 2005; Shaffer et al, 2014; Torvund, 2005) provide examples of songs that use the same or similar chord progressions. However, authors of those materials do not usually speculate about the likelihood that listeners can make such harmonic associations on their own or that such associations can, either consciously or unconsciously, affect their experiences of a song.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Chord Progressions and Feelings of Remembering

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although Western tonal syntax can generate a very large number of chord successions of various lengths and degrees of complexity, some types of music, from Renaissance dances to recent pop, tend to rely more heavily on the repetition of relatively simple, short harmonic patterns. Doll recently identified short chord progressions commonly found in North American and British popular music and proposed that these chord progressions can be stored in long-term memory in the form of harmonic schemata that allow listeners to hear them as stereotypical chord progressions. However, considering the challenges that many listeners face when trying to consciously grasp harmony, it seems likely that the feelings of remembering chord progressions varies from listener to listener. To investigate these potential differences, we asked 231 listeners with various levels of musical training to rate their confidence on whether or not they had previously heard six diatonic four-chord progressions. To control for the effect of extra-harmonic features, we instantiated the chord progressions in a way that resembled the piano of a famous song and controlled for participants’ familiarity with that song and whether they had played its chords. We found that ratings correlated with typicality for the two groups of participants who had played an instrument for at least one year and to a lesser extent for the other participants. Additionally, all our players thought of specific songs more often and mentioned songs that better matched the stimuli in harmonic terms. What we did not find, however, was any effect associated to how long participants had played an instrument or the type of the instrument they had played. Our research supports the notion that both musical training and extra-harmonic features affect listeners’ feelings of remembering chord progressions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Chord Progressions and Feelings of Remembering

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional benefits and issues: other disciplines have successfully trialed the model (Shaffer, 2014), and many open review journals are credible. The 2016 impact factors of Scientific Reports, PLoS One and IEEE Access were 4.25, 2.81, and 3.24, respectively.…”

Section: Addressing Review Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

Chua¹,

Thatcher²,

Niederman³

et al. 2018

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the report of a panel that debated the review process in the information systems (IS) discipline at ICIS 2017 in Seoul, Korea. The panel asked the fundamental question of whether we need to rethink the way we review papers in the discipline. The panelists partnered with the audience to explore some reviewing limitations in IS today and the ways that reviewing in the discipline might change to address some of its difficulties. We first report key concerns with modern reviewing. We then present arguments for and against three proposals (i.e., paying for reviews, mandatory reviews, and open reviews) and a panel audience vote on the issues. We neither advocate for nor condemn these solutions but rather use them to illustrate what we believe represent the core underlying issues with reviewing in the IS discipline. Specifically, we believe the key stumbling blocks to effectively improving our review process include 1) a lack of empirical data on actual practice, 2) a lack of clear goals, and 3) an ignorance of the possible solutions to the review dilemma that the wider literature articulates.

show abstract

A Proposal for Open Peer Review

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Common Chord Progressions and Feelings of Remembering

Common Chord Progressions and Feelings of Remembering

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About